You are here: / / FATHER DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THIS CHILD SUPPORT...
,

FATHER DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined father was not provided with effective assistance of counsel in this child support proceeding. The standard for effective assistance is “meaningful representation” because the punishment can (and did) include incarceration:

As the father contends, he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at the hearing on the mother’s petition alleging willful violation of the child support order. “[I]n support proceedings such as this one in which a party faces the potential of imprisonment and has a statutory right to counsel, . . . the appropriate standard to apply in evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance is the meaningful representation standard” … . Here, the father’s position at the hearing was that, due to his neuropathy, he was unable to work and had to rely on public assistance for income. Notably, despite having been advised that the father was required to provide a financial disclosure affidavit, tax forms, and certified medical and income records, the father’s counsel failed to procure certified copies of the father’s medical records or records establishing his entitlement to and receipt of public assistance. Moreover, the father’s counsel failed to call any witnesses to testify regarding the father’s neuropathy, to subpoena the father’s treating physician, or to obtain a medical affidavit from the father’s physician. The Support Magistrate made specific reference to the lack of any credible medical testimony, an incomplete financial disclosure affidavit, and the lack of tax returns in finding that the father failed to refute the mother’s prima facie showing of a willful violation of the child support order. The failure of the father’s counsel to obtain relevant medical and financial information constituted a failure to meaningfully represent the father, and thus, the father is entitled to a new hearing on the mother’s petition … . Matter of McCloskey v Unger, 2024 NY Slip Op 05210, Second Dept 10-23-24

Practice Point: Where a party in a child support proceeding faces possible incarceration, the party is entitled to “meaningful representation” by counsel, which was absent here.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DEFAULTED; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED LIABILITY ISSUES AT THE INQUEST TO DETERMINE DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS; THE JUDGE LEFT IT TO MOTHER AND HER CHILD TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).
SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR DEEMED A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
No Action Where Plaintiff Struck by Small Piece of Sheetrock Dropped from Third Floor
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST; TROOPER DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE PETITIONER OPERATED HIS MOTORCYCLE UNDER THE INFLUENCE.
DEFENDANT ASSERTED SHE THOUGHT PLAINTIFF’S CAR WOULD GO THROUGH THE YELLOW LIGHT AT AN INTERSECTION AND DEFENDANT RAN INTO THE REAR OF PLAINTIFF’S CAR WHEN IT CAME TO A SUDDEN STOP, DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION DID NOT CONSTITUTE A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
NEW AUDI DEALERSHIP WAS OUTSIDE PLAINTIFF DEALERSHIP’S MARKET AREA, SUIT UNDER THE DEALER ACT PROPERLY DISMISSED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PERSON SERVED WAS... THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT HAD BEEN AT LIBERTY FOR 11 YEARS WITHOUT COMMITTING...